richardhutnik said:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/02/chick-fil-a-appreciation-day-sets-record-restaurant-chain-says/?hpt=hp_t3
What is seen with activists is the belief that they can boycott a company and cause it to change its way. They operate under the assumption that prople outraged at a company will cause the company to be hurt so badly, it changes its views.
However, what happens when you have a situation where an issue is divisive and polarizes? Apparently with the whole Chik-Fil-A bruhaha, calls to boycott and protest lead people on the other side to do the opposite, to get people to shop at the place. End result? Well, the company apparently set sales records on Appreciation Day.
So, I would have a question: In case of polarizing issues, can a boycott really be effective, or does it just make a company a stronger niche brand and improves its bottom line by creating a stronger identity for itself? I would ask to focus on the effect of a boycott here, rather than have this turn into a discussion over gay marriage. I say this request because there is another thread on that subject. Also, it doesn't help any regarding the issue if people on one side or another are spun as spawns of evil.
|
Sure boycotts can be effective. Just as supporting companies who you feel not only supply products you enjoy but may even have people within them (in this case it is the CEOs personal views) whom mirror your own beliefs or values.
I am inferring from your post that you are disapointed that after the bruhaha over the CEO of Chik-fil-a making pubic his own personal beliefs that the boycott hasn't worked out the way you hoped?
It isn't the fact that Chik-fil-a's CEO does not support gay marriage that has ignited the ardent support from those whom have participated in the recent sales jump. It is the attack on the company for having a CEO who is willing to say his religious beliefs in public. Iguarantee had the supporters of gay marriage dismissed his comments and ignored them this whole thing would have been forgotten in a day.
The boycott so-far has failed because there is no support for it. And why should there be? He has the right to believe any way he wants to WITHOUT retribution from the gofernment that is suppse to protect his right to speak. Shortly after his comments he had state and local governemt officials attacking the company he works for which was wrong.
Now gay Americans have every right to boycott Chik-Fil-A and even speak out against the company. Just as other Americans have the right to support the company by patronizing its stores. And so when that happened the boycott failed. But so what? How does that in any way hurt gays? So they won't get some of the yummy delicious chicken products from Chik-Fil-A, by choice of course.